1001 stories from the coalition

In '1001 Arabian Nights' Scheherazade had to tell a new story every night to impress her husband and ensure he did not execute her.

Over the last couple of weeks the coalition government has been just a prolific with its storytelling, with each new day bringing a new initiative to put the country back on track.

In the last week the country has been informed that the government intends to slash incapacity spending (Sunday), impose an immigration cap (Monday), introduce a regional stimulus fund to help struggling areas (Tuesday) and keep low level offenders out of prison (Wednesday).

All of these proclamations are intended to present the new government as pro-active, progressive and forward thinking. Not everyone is impressed though.

There has been criticism in the House of Commons that all of the government’s initiatives tend to come to light away from the despatch box.

The ConDems seem to prefer pre-arranged press conferences, like the love-in at the rose garden or Laws and Osborne's cuts presentation, to debate in parliament.

Theresa May had to apologise on Wednesday that her immigration cap proposals were leaked to the media before being read to the House.

This morning the ConDems are at it again, with the BBC reporting the scheduled date for a vote on electoral reform before the official announcement due next week.

Convenient leaks to the media are nothing new of course and Tony Blair used them to great affect during his time as PM.

The criticisms were much the same then as they are now. By revealing policies to the press before the House, government press officers can spin the story and gain popular support before they are debated by all sides in parliament.

With such controversial policies being suggested it is easier to control a stage managed press conference then the unpredictable reactions of MPs.

The government’s continued storytelling is helping to dominate the political agenda in the same way the Labour government did for most of Blair’s time in power.

The opposition is wounded and leaderless making it easier for the ConDems to act as if there is no opposition.

Like Scheherazade the creation of a coherent narrative is important to the government’s survival. The story Nick and Dave want to establish is that everything is Labour’s fault and that their decive reforms are the only solution.

So far the strategy is working but it is how the governments policies conclude not how they start that will decide their fate.

The Arabian princess managed to put off a definitive conclusion to her stories until the prince decided he wanted to keep her, the ConDems are looking for a similar result.

Interview: Adrian Windisch, Green Party candidate for Reading West

With much of the media scrutiny focused on the leaders' debates and national policies, it is easy to forget that our electoral system is determined by constituencies. Local voters elect an MP to represent their interests and not just toe the party line.

The Green Party candidate for Reading West, Adrian Windisch, believes he and other candidates from his party can more independently champion local causes than their rivals. He said: “ There is no party whip at the Green Party, so individual members are freer to campaign on issues that are important to them.”

Cynics may suggest that the Green Party lack a 'party whip', a system of controlling how their members vote in parliament, because they do not have any MP's. Windisch believes that the independence of the Green Party is more fundamental however, and said: “You can go against party policy; an example of this is Chris Goodall, candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon. As a party we are against Nuclear Power but he has decided personally to support it, he was not disciplined by the party leaders or advised against it.”


Without clear party lines it could be difficult to identity what a party stands for but Mr Windisch believes the Green Party focus is clear, “Our my message is fairness”.


This may sound familiar to even casual election observers, as fairness seems to be all the main parties' favourite word. “All the parties are talking about fairness now but we began that campaign with our ‘fair is worth fighting for’ slogan which we launched first” he said.


Influencing the mainstream parties is one of the principle purposes of the Green Party according to Windisch and one they have had success at in the past.


“Although it is unlikely I do think I can win this election. Even if I do not the campaigning I have done during this time may encourage people to vote for the Green Party in other elections" he said. "As a Party we have also pushed a green agenda onto the other parties. It is similar to when the BNP gain support the other parties move slightly to the right on issues like immigration. We can be a positive pressure group on the political system.”


Although he remains hopeful his chances of victory on May 6th are pretty slim. The Green Party has stood in both the Reading East and Reading West seats at the last two elections and both times they have polled less then the five per cent of votes required to keep their £500 deposits. “Not just in these constituencies but right across the country, for a Green Party candidate to keep their deposit is an achievement" he says. "We have a very small budget compared to the larger parties and can not compete with their level of exposure”.

Despite their small electoral chances, the Green party are fielding over 300 candidates at this election. They are hoping to achieve their very first MP with their party leader Caroline Lucas ahead in the polls in the Brighton Pavilion constituency. Despite this degree of success they are still expecting to lose a majority of their deposits and I asked Windisch if he thought the party should concerntrate on seat they could compete in.


“We have a more organic way of selecting candidates then other political parties", he says. "We ask local members if they want to stand and if people want to we will support them. We do not target specific seat necessarily."


Windisch believes this leads to a more representative and democratic party. He is very proud of the fact that four party members can raise a vote on party policy and believes Lucas is a match for any of the main party leaders. “The television debates are typical of the way the Green Party is sidelined from the main debate, I personally have been excluded from 3 hustings meetings in this campaign", he said. "Caroline Lucas is an inspirational speaker and would have wiped the floor with the other three if she had shared that platform”.


When asked to choose between one of the three main parties, he suggested that the Liberal Democrats were "a bit better". As for the Reading West constituency he had some surprising words of praise for his Conservative rival, Alok Sharma. "Alok has impressed me as a candidate I admire him because he is open and honest", he said. "I totally disagree with his policies but I think he is more genuine than the other candidates.”


It is hard to think of one of the main three parties endorsing a rival candidate in such a manner, perhaps this is the sort of new politics often mentioned by politicians. Maybe this is the kind of  positive pressure Adrian Windisch thinks the Green Party can have on UK politics, with or without any MPs.

Reading Volunteers Challenge Tories 'Big Society'

Conservative candidate Alok Sharma faced fierce criticism over his party’s ‘big society’ policies at the Reading Faith Forum last night.

The question and answer session organised by local religious groups, featured the candidates for Labour, Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in the Reading West constituency.

Many of those in attendance are involved in voluntary work and several members of the forum questioned the feasibility of the Conservatives new style of localism, with Mr Sharma being told to “get real” in one heated exchange.

Mr Sharma told the forum: “We need an agenda of localisation; we need to have an agenda of the big society. A change that will make people sitting in this room and others feel really involved in government.”

One audience member said: “I am involved in voluntary work and it is very difficult to get others involved. I seriously doubt a sudden rush of volunteering.”

David Cameron has made the ‘big society’ the main pledge of the Tory campaign, promising to improve local services by empowering people to run them themselves.

Another member of the audience said: “It sounds like the big society would mean relinquishing responsibility and would create a survival of the fittest situation where those who can organise themselves will do well and those that really need help could get left behind.”

Mr Sharma defended arguments that much needed but unpopular infrastructure may be delayed or scrapped if opposed by empowered individuals. He said: “If you give local people the opportunity to decide, I think you will find that they are pretty sensible and pragmatic. To say that everyone is going to be a nimby and object to any development they do not like is wrong.”

Naz Sarkar, local candidate for Labour, said: “I think that government should work in partnership with faith and voluntary groups. You cannot expect government to creep back and work in isolation.”

The largest applause of the evening was given to the Liberal Democrat candidate, Daisy Benson, when she said: “The Tories talk about localisation but I have heard nothing from them about devolving more power to local councils. Local councils empower people and are accountable and
democratic. The Conservatives have said nothing about reforming local government finance which is why this just sounds like more empty words from politicians.”

Public Kept in the Dark Over Rail Bridge Costs

The costs of a rail bridge which was paid for by the tax-payer and ran nine months over schedule are inaccessible to the public.

A new passenger bridge and lift was opened at Twyford train station on 15th November 2009 providing much needed access for disabled people to the station's platforms. The construction was paid for by a Government loan under the Access for All initiative, construction was started in July 2008 and was scheduled to be completed on March 2009.

I asked Network Rail for information on the tendering process for the construction and whether it ran over the originally estimated budget of £3.6m. They responded that as a private company they do not have to release information of that nature to the public. I then asked the Department of Transport the same questions.

Martin Holt of the Department for Transport said: "Network Rail manage the delivery of the main Access for All programme and appoint contractors for each project in the programme using a competitive tendering process, and so I hope you will appreciate that much of the detailed information about delivery of construction works on site is held by Network Rail and their contractors, not the Department".

Network Rail is not currently covered by the Freedom of Information Act and as the Government does not seem to record how they spend taxpayers money, they can carry out public works without public scrutiny. 

Katherine Gundersen, Research Officer for The Campaign for Freedom of Information, said: "Unfortunately Network Rail are not currently covered by the Freedom of Information Act. There is a provision in Section 5 of the Act for the Secretary of State for Justice to designate additional public authorities by Order. To be capable of being designated under this section, bodies must either (a) exercise functions of a public nature or (b) provide a service under contract with a public authority whose provision is a function of that authority. "

"Not that long ago the government consulted on whether it should use this power to bring additional bodies under FOI. The Campaign's response to the consultation called for Network Rail to be covered".

Despite Network Rail seeming to fit the criteria of Section 5 of the act, it was not brought under FOI following that review. For now public money can be spent on the maintenance of the railways without any public accountability.

 

Network Rail may have to perform further maintenance at Twyford due to large puddles of water collecting on the steps of the newly unveiled bridge. These seem to be a health and safety problem inadvertently left by the contractors who constructed the bridge and will most likely need to be levelled out.

Will this work be conducted by the same contractors? Will it be added to the original costs of the construction? Will the work be paid for by taxpayers?

All of these question would yield interesting answers but by law Network Rail do not have to answer them.